UN Rules in favor of Assange

[Farnhamia]

Justice prevails.

A non-binding UN ruling that will not actually change anything is justice prevailing? I would have expected more from justice.

Indeed. If not a sword, a steak knife, perhaps or a letter opener or ... something.

[Fartsniffage]

A non-binding UN ruling that will not actually change anything is justice prevailing? I would have expected more from justice.

Indeed. If not a sword, a steak knife, perhaps or a letter opener or ... something.

The UN didn't even bang a gavel.

[Ifreann]

Please don't make this personal; that has nothing to do with the topic

please don't make allegations

I disagree. You have previously claimed to be a law student and have spent most of this thread making assertions about legal matters. I would say that your lack of awareness of the man on the Clapham omnibus, an important concept in civil law used in the place you claim to be studying law, casts doubts on your previous claims of expertise in the area and makes everything you have said regarding legal matters suspect.

I didn't think the Clapham omnibus served Canada...

---

A non-binding UN ruling that will not actually change anything is justice prevailing? I would have expected more from justice.

Indeed. If not a sword, a steak knife, perhaps or a letter opener or ... something.

They should have had their sternly worded letter printed on gilded paper and given the British and Swedish papercuts, that'd show 'em.

[Infected Mushroom]

Please don't make this personal; that has nothing to do with the topic

please don't make allegations

I disagree. You have previously claimed to be a law student and have spent most of this thread making assertions about legal matters. I would say that your lack of awareness of the man on the Clapham omnibus, an important concept in civil law used in the place you claim to be studying law, casts doubts on your previous claims of expertise in the area and makes everything you have said regarding legal matters suspect.

Thats not relevant to the thread. I don't believe we are here to launch attacks on credentials and I have never advanced my own credentials in this thread as an argument (because that would be a logical fallacy and an appeal to authority). Its not relevant anyhow.

[Dragonia Re Xzua]

I disagree. You have previously claimed to be a law student and have spent most of this thread making assertions about legal matters. I would say that your lack of awareness of the man on the Clapham omnibus, an important concept in civil law used in the place you claim to be studying law, casts doubts on your previous claims of expertise in the area and makes everything you have said regarding legal matters suspect.

I didn't think the Clapham omnibus served Canada...

---

Indeed. If not a sword, a steak knife, perhaps or a letter opener or ... something.

They should have had their sternly worded letter printed on gilded paper and given the British and Swedish papercuts, that'd show 'em.

Then David Cameron will shout "This violates our sovereignty!" as he falls to the floor, bawling from the paper cut.

[Ifreann]

I didn't think the Clapham omnibus served Canada...

---

They should have had their sternly worded letter printed on gilded paper and given the British and Swedish papercuts, that'd show 'em.

Then David Cameron will shout "This violates our sovereignty!" as he falls to the floor, bawling from the paper cut.

Papercuts are the greatest pain known to exist.

[Galloism]

Please don't make this personal; that has nothing to do with the topic

please don't make allegations

I disagree. You have previously claimed to be a law student and have spent most of this thread making assertions about legal matters. I would say that your lack of awareness of the man on the Clapham omnibus, an important concept in civil law used in the place you claim to be studying law, casts doubts on your previous claims of expertise in the area and makes everything you have said regarding legal matters suspect.

I am shocked and appalled that you would even insinuate a person who states SCOTUS has unlimited power and courts can reinterpret any law or contract to suit his fancy, regardless of wording, is not actually a law student. How dare you sir! How dare you.

[Vassenor]

Jokes aren't funny if they have to be explained. But you should probably give up the pretence that you study law in Canada...

Please don't make this personal; that has nothing to do with the topic

please don't make allegations

They do have a point though. You claim to be a law student yet you do not understand a basic legal test.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I disagree. You have previously claimed to be a law student and have spent most of this thread making assertions about legal matters. I would say that your lack of awareness of the man on the Clapham omnibus, an important concept in civil law used in the place you claim to be studying law, casts doubts on your previous claims of expertise in the area and makes everything you have said regarding legal matters suspect.

I am shocked and appalled that you would even insinuate a person who states SCOTUS has unlimited power and courts can reinterpret any law or contract to suit his fancy, regardless of wording, is not actually a law student. How dare you sir! How dare you.

What bothers me is how nonchalantly he suggests these things. Ignoring international law and diplomacy and everything. I'm not a law student and never was and even I know what the repercussions could be.

I guess his high school life is boring.

[Galloism]

I am shocked and appalled that you would even insinuate a person who states SCOTUS has unlimited power and courts can reinterpret any law or contract to suit his fancy, regardless of wording, is not actually a law student. How dare you sir! How dare you.

What bothers me is how nonchalantly he suggests these things. Ignoring international law and diplomacy and everything. I'm not a law student and never was and even I know what the repercussions could be.

I guess his high school life is boring.

You're so charitable with people. I love you.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

What bothers me is how nonchalantly he suggests these things. Ignoring international law and diplomacy and everything. I'm not a law student and never was and even I know what the repercussions could be.

I guess his high school life is boring.

You're so charitable with people. I love you.

Middle school then?

[Dragonia Re Xzua]

Then David Cameron will shout "This violates our sovereignty!" as he falls to the floor, bawling from the paper cut.

Papercuts are the greatest pain known to exist.

Yes. We should appease to the UN to ban all paper cuts, because they reveal the inner infant-in-the-fetal-position of its victims.
That and paper cuts at or near the fingernail bed.

I am shocked and appalled that you would even insinuate a person who states SCOTUS has unlimited power and courts can reinterpret any law or contract to suit his fancy, regardless of wording, is not actually a law student. How dare you sir! How dare you.

What bothers me is how nonchalantly he suggests these things. Ignoring international law and diplomacy and everything. I'm not a law student and never was and even I know what the repercussions could be.

I guess his high school life is boring.

How dare you think that IM has a life outside of their fantasy law school. They need this!

[Fartsniffage]

I didn't think the Clapham omnibus served Canada...

You think Rowling was just making up that stuff about the knightbus? The London bus system is both magic and terrifying, you'll never know where you might end up......or what flavour vomit you might sit in. *nods*

[Dragonia Re Xzua]

I didn't think the Clapham omnibus served Canada...

You think Rowling was just making up that stuff about the knightbus? The London bus system is both magic and terrifying, you'll never know where you might end up......or what flavour vomit you might sit in. *nods*

It's the Magic School Bus for wankers. *nod*

[Infected Mushroom]

Please don't make this personal; that has nothing to do with the topic

please don't make allegations

They do have a point though. You claim to be a law student yet you do not understand a basic legal test.

My ''claim'' to being a law student is not the subject of the thread.

[Farnhamia]

You think Rowling was just making up that stuff about the knightbus? The London bus system is both magic and terrifying, you'll never know where you might end up......or what flavour vomit you might sit in. *nods*

It's the Magic School Bus for wankers. *nod*

Let's move on, shall we?

[Lady Scylla]

I disagree. You have previously claimed to be a law student and have spent most of this thread making assertions about legal matters. I would say that your lack of awareness of the man on the Clapham omnibus, an important concept in civil law used in the place you claim to be studying law, casts doubts on your previous claims of expertise in the area and makes everything you have said regarding legal matters suspect.

Thats not relevant to the thread. I don't believe we are here to launch attacks on credentials and I have never advanced my own credentials in this thread as an argument (because that would be a logical fallacy and an appeal to authority). Its not relevant anyhow.

Which is perhaps a good thing, I don't like smoke being blown up my ass. The issue is that we've well argued why the things you've put forth won't work. It's not reality, and again, this isn't an unknown problem we have with you. It's every thread, and it makes us question a lot about your credentials, and your credibility over your knowledge of the subjects that we discuss. That's entirely on you. Generally, when people are presented information that's factual, their positions change -- in your case, you just remain rigid in your own convoluted beliefs, and become nothing more than a frustration until eventually, the entirety of the thread turns against you, and then we're graced with your silence.

And going over your posting history, I think you being the centre of attention is entirely your point, (Not to mention that you were deleted and reported for this behaviour before) because by doing this repeatedly, in every thread you've ever participated in, the discussion shifts to you and not the discussion. Based on your posting habits, attacks against you in these threads, and your reporting of said attacks, it appears that that is what you want, attention. Which, really, just means we just have to ignore you, but it takes having to be brutally blunt as I have been, in outlining the problem we are facing when interacting with you -- so that others take the hint. You've run yourself out of friends rather quickly in discussions, unless you plan on dragging Valystria in again on your behalf to give you some moral support.

So, IM, let me grace you with the attention that you seek. Unless someone wants to correct me, I think we're all but fed up with the frustration. Generally, nothing is said or we entertain you for sometime because I don't think any of us want to be mean or feel like we're being cruel, (because we generally like and prefer being nice) but you've taken advantage of that. At this point, I don't care if I hurt your feelings.

I don't like dealing with people that behave in a manipulative manner, and I've a very low tolerance for whatever bullshit you're trying to serve us on that silver platter of yours. There just arrives a point, when an individual's behaviour becomes so consistent, that a problem arises that something is wrong or not quite right, and as I've outlined, based on your posting habits and previous behaviour in nearly every thread you've been a participant of, a pattern has become evident. Your views, in practically every thread, are warped or detached from the basis of what is reality, and despite our attempts to correct them -- you only go above and beyond to outshine us with your rigidity, until the conversation is on you, and we are unable to get it back on track -- thanks to you.

You get to enjoy being the centre of attention, and if anyone calls you out, its a nice beat down by Moderation. I'm done catering to you, I'm done being nice with you, I'm done tolerating you. I don't like basket cases because they rarely have any of the eggs that I enjoy, and I'm usually short-changed because they're rarely full of all the eggs they advertise. Instead, I'm left with nothing more than disappointment. So I hope I've given you all the attention that you want IM, and I hope people stop wasting their time feeding your bullshit. When you can actually promote a solid discussion, that makes sense, and makes discussing with you pleasurable on both sides of the line, then I'll rethink my stance. But for now, you're not worth our time, you're not worth the discussion, and I've better things to do then sit here and wantonly toss attention at you every time you come on a thread because you need some form of self-validation. Get over it.

[Lady Scylla]

Now then, can we please get back on topic?

[Gravlen]

As of such he should not be persecuted for it. "Innocent until proven guilty" is an universal motto of the western law system, and a good one too that should be always upheld. As said if we started arresting people on nothing but testimonies(and worse even vague and highly probably faked ones to), hell where would we be?

Pretty much where we are right now. That is, we have a system of testing any allegations (a "court") wherein the prosecution has the task of proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.

The presumption of innocence is less of a factor in the investigative stages, and vital when it moves beyond that and in before a judge.

As of such it is clear that assange should not be ruled guilty on this, unless the women can come forth with some actual evidence that cannot be denied.

You're incorrect about the workings of the justice system yet again: It's not the woman who has to provide evidence, it's the prosecution. And they provide as evidence her testimony.

No it isn´t sorry. That is not how it LEGALLY works. Legally you cannot detain a person without proof. But that is exactly what is done here in case of assange which is a breach of international laws and human rights. And again if it were that easy, you could detain people forever based on testimonies or rather accusations in this case.

- Evidence has been provided.
- A court... actually, several courts, have come to the conclusion that the evidence provided prima facie creates grounds for suspicion, and that questioning the accused (Assange) should happen.
- Assange has refused to submit for questioning, and has evaded justice. Thus, being a flight risk, there's compelling reasons to arrest him.

I could go to the police and say YOU did something for example. Without any proof or nothing you are now detained until proven innocent.

Nope.

Sorry it is a fact my friend. If not then please show me and us empirical data that could AT LEAST SUGGEST that assange is guilty of rape.... Can you do that?

The police report is available online. It shows the testimony of the accuser.

I agree on that but personally have very mixed feelings about if he should stand trial for that rape accusation.... since it is most likely the case that he will not face a fair trial.

Why not?

And even if he faces a fair trial and is released due to a clear lack of credible and/or objective evidence, then he will as some argued earlier most likely be deported to america where he will definitely face an unfair trial under americas "patriotic act" in their consititution which they implemented somewhen since 2000.

Why do you think he will be deported to the US?

[Infected Mushroom]

Thats not relevant to the thread. I don't believe we are here to launch attacks on credentials and I have never advanced my own credentials in this thread as an argument (because that would be a logical fallacy and an appeal to authority). Its not relevant anyhow.

Which is perhaps a good thing, I don't like smoke being blown up my ass. The issue is that we've well argued why the things you've put forth won't work. It's not reality, and again, this isn't an unknown problem we have with you. It's every thread, and it makes us question a lot about your credentials, and your credibility over your knowledge of the subjects that we discuss. That's entirely on you. Generally, when people are presented information that's factual, their positions change -- in your case, you just remain rigid in your own convoluted beliefs, and become nothing more than a frustration until eventually, the entirety of the thread turns against you, and then we're graced with your silence.

And going over your posting history, I think you being the centre of attention is entirely your point, because by doing this repeatedly, in every thread you've ever participated in, the discussion shifts to you and not the discussion. Based on your posting habits, attacks against you in these threads, and your reporting of said attacks, it appears that that is what you want, attention. Which, really, just means we just have to ignore you, but it takes having to be brutally blunt as I have been, in outlining the problem we are facing when interacting with you -- so that others take the hint. You've run yourself out of friends rather quickly in discussions, unless you plan on dragging Valystria in again on your behalf to give you some moral support.

So, IM, let me grace you with the attention that you seek. Unless someone wants to correct me, I think we're all but fed up with the frustration. Generally, nothing is said or we entertain you for sometime because I don't think any of us want to be mean or feel like we're being cruel, (because we generally like and prefer being nice) but you've taken advantage of that. At this point, I don't care if I hurt your feelings.

I don't like dealing with people that behave in a manipulative manner, and I've a very low tolerance for whatever bullshit you're trying to serve us on that silver platter of yours. There just arrives a point, when an individual's behaviour becomes so consistent, that a problem arises that something is wrong or not quite right, and as I've outlined, based on your posting habits and previous behaviour in nearly every thread you've been a participant of, a pattern has become evident. Your views, in practically every thread, are warped or detached from the basis of what is reality, and despite our attempts to correct them -- you only go above and beyond to outshine us with your rigidity, until the conversation is on you, and we are unable to get it back on track -- thanks to you.

You get to enjoy being the centre of attention, and if anyone calls you out, its a nice beat down by Moderation. I'm done catering to you, I'm done being nice with you, I'm done tolerating you. I don't like basket cases because they rarely have any of the eggs that I enjoy, and I'm usually short-changed because they're rarely full of all the eggs they advertise. Instead, I'm left with nothing more than disappointment. So I hope I've given you all the attention that you want IM, and I hope people stop wasting their time feeding your bullshit. When you can actually promote a solid discussion, that makes sense, and makes discussing with you pleasurable on both sides of the line, then I'll rethink my stance. But for now, you're not worth our time, you're not worth the discussion, and I've better things to do then sit here and wantonly toss attention at you every time you come on a thread because you need some form of self-validation. Get over it.

It isn't my problem if others continue to re-focus the discussion on me and my credentials instead of addressing the actual topic of discussion every time I profess and defend a view. I start nothing but have to be on the responding end every time; it simply isn't my fault that others choose to resort to character attacks and comments about my posting history (I don't go there, others try to go there because they seem to find it difficult to address my arguments without making such prejudicial non-arguments). The fact that you're holding this fact against me... speaks to your lack of impartiality and your confirmed bias in this entire matter.

If you have read the posts, you would see very clearly that in this thread (and pretty much in every other thread), I'm not the party that starts re-focusing the discussion on Me or My posting history. Its the opposition, and they seem to consider this kind of prejudicial debating legitimate. The fact that you shift the blame on me when I start nothing (except present my legitimate opinion on thread topics) speaks to your lack of impartiality and confirmed bias in the entire matter.

Who started this entire inquiry about whether or not I was a real law student? Did I start it to seek attention or derail the thread? No, the opposition started it and I was merely responding to it.

[Lady Scylla]

Which is perhaps a good thing, I don't like smoke being blown up my ass. The issue is that we've well argued why the things you've put forth won't work. It's not reality, and again, this isn't an unknown problem we have with you. It's every thread, and it makes us question a lot about your credentials, and your credibility over your knowledge of the subjects that we discuss. That's entirely on you. Generally, when people are presented information that's factual, their positions change -- in your case, you just remain rigid in your own convoluted beliefs, and become nothing more than a frustration until eventually, the entirety of the thread turns against you, and then we're graced with your silence.

And going over your posting history, I think you being the centre of attention is entirely your point, because by doing this repeatedly, in every thread you've ever participated in, the discussion shifts to you and not the discussion. Based on your posting habits, attacks against you in these threads, and your reporting of said attacks, it appears that that is what you want, attention. Which, really, just means we just have to ignore you, but it takes having to be brutally blunt as I have been, in outlining the problem we are facing when interacting with you -- so that others take the hint. You've run yourself out of friends rather quickly in discussions, unless you plan on dragging Valystria in again on your behalf to give you some moral support.

So, IM, let me grace you with the attention that you seek. Unless someone wants to correct me, I think we're all but fed up with the frustration. Generally, nothing is said or we entertain you for sometime because I don't think any of us want to be mean or feel like we're being cruel, (because we generally like and prefer being nice) but you've taken advantage of that. At this point, I don't care if I hurt your feelings.

I don't like dealing with people that behave in a manipulative manner, and I've a very low tolerance for whatever bullshit you're trying to serve us on that silver platter of yours. There just arrives a point, when an individual's behaviour becomes so consistent, that a problem arises that something is wrong or not quite right, and as I've outlined, based on your posting habits and previous behaviour in nearly every thread you've been a participant of, a pattern has become evident. Your views, in practically every thread, are warped or detached from the basis of what is reality, and despite our attempts to correct them -- you only go above and beyond to outshine us with your rigidity, until the conversation is on you, and we are unable to get it back on track -- thanks to you.

You get to enjoy being the centre of attention, and if anyone calls you out, its a nice beat down by Moderation. I'm done catering to you, I'm done being nice with you, I'm done tolerating you. I don't like basket cases because they rarely have any of the eggs that I enjoy, and I'm usually short-changed because they're rarely full of all the eggs they advertise. Instead, I'm left with nothing more than disappointment. So I hope I've given you all the attention that you want IM, and I hope people stop wasting their time feeding your bullshit. When you can actually promote a solid discussion, that makes sense, and makes discussing with you pleasurable on both sides of the line, then I'll rethink my stance. But for now, you're not worth our time, you're not worth the discussion, and I've better things to do then sit here and wantonly toss attention at you every time you come on a thread because you need some form of self-validation. Get over it.

It isn't my problem if others continue to re-focus the discussion on me and my credentials instead of addressing the actual topic of discussion every time I profess and defend a view. I start nothing but have to be on the responding end every time; it simply isn't my fault that others choose to resort to character attacks and comments about my posting history (I don't go there, others try to go there because they seem to find it difficult to address my arguments without making such prejudicial non-arguments). The fact that you're holding this fact against me... speaks to your lack of impartiality and your confirmed bias in this entire matter.

If you have read the posts, you would see very clearly that in this thread (and pretty much in every other thread), I'm not the party that starts re-focusing the discussion on Me or My posting history. Its the opposition, and they seem to consider this kind of prejudicial debating legitimate. The fact that you shift the blame on me when I start nothing (except present my legitimate opinion on thread topics) speaks to your lack of impartiality and confirmed bias in the entire matter.

Who started this entire inquiry about whether or not I was a real law student? Did I start it to seek attention or derail the thread? No, the opposition started it and I was merely responding to it.

If you're upset over people's bias, then you've only yourself to blame.

search.php?keywords=God+Kefka&terms=all&author=&sc=1&sf=firstpost&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

I'm done having this conversation now, go find someone who gives a shit.

[Ostroeuropa]

I agree with infected mushroom tbh. I've noticed that it's never him that starts this shit, and frankly, the circlejerking has led some of you to discount some of his views which had legitimacy or were making a point but required closer inspection.

If the USA published a pardon on Assange for the espionage, do you think that'd accomplish anything?

[Lady Scylla]

As of such he should not be persecuted for it. "Innocent until proven guilty" is an universal motto of the western law system, and a good one too that should be always upheld. As said if we started arresting people on nothing but testimonies(and worse even vague and highly probably faked ones to), hell where would we be?

Pretty much where we are right now. That is, we have a system of testing any allegations (a "court") wherein the prosecution has the task of proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.

The presumption of innocence is less of a factor in the investigative stages, and vital when it moves beyond that and in before a judge.

As of such it is clear that assange should not be ruled guilty on this, unless the women can come forth with some actual evidence that cannot be denied.

You're incorrect about the workings of the justice system yet again: It's not the woman who has to provide evidence, it's the prosecution. And they provide as evidence her testimony.

No it isn´t sorry. That is not how it LEGALLY works. Legally you cannot detain a person without proof. But that is exactly what is done here in case of assange which is a breach of international laws and human rights. And again if it were that easy, you could detain people forever based on testimonies or rather accusations in this case.

- Evidence has been provided.
- A court... actually, several courts, have come to the conclusion that the evidence provided prima facie creates grounds for suspicion, and that questioning the accused (Assange) should happen.
- Assange has refused to submit for questioning, and has evaded justice. Thus, being a flight risk, there's compelling reasons to arrest him.

I could go to the police and say YOU did something for example. Without any proof or nothing you are now detained until proven innocent.

Nope.

Sorry it is a fact my friend. If not then please show me and us empirical data that could AT LEAST SUGGEST that assange is guilty of rape.... Can you do that?

The police report is available online. It shows the testimony of the accuser.

I agree on that but personally have very mixed feelings about if he should stand trial for that rape accusation.... since it is most likely the case that he will not face a fair trial.

Why not?

And even if he faces a fair trial and is released due to a clear lack of credible and/or objective evidence, then he will as some argued earlier most likely be deported to america where he will definitely face an unfair trial under americas "patriotic act" in their consititution which they implemented somewhen since 2000.

Why do you think he will be deported to the US?

The US has so far denied claims that they want a deportation, or have an indictment waiting for him. Right now, it seems Sweden's the only one that wants him, and that's for the rape allegations that he's run from. Manning is serving time for her part in releasing those documents meanwhile American authorities have yet to do anything over Assange. He should've gone to Sweden and done the interview, if he'd gone to trial, he could've argued the political impact that could affect his decision and might have either gotten off on something of a compassionate release (or it may be proven he didn't commit a crime). However, him fleeing and avoiding it hasn't helped him, so that if he did go to Sweden, that'd most likely affect the jury's response to him -- because he ran.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Pretty much where we are right now. That is, we have a system of testing any allegations (a "court") wherein the prosecution has the task of proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.

The presumption of innocence is less of a factor in the investigative stages, and vital when it moves beyond that and in before a judge.


You're incorrect about the workings of the justice system yet again: It's not the woman who has to provide evidence, it's the prosecution. And they provide as evidence her testimony.


- Evidence has been provided.
- A court... actually, several courts, have come to the conclusion that the evidence provided prima facie creates grounds for suspicion, and that questioning the accused (Assange) should happen.
- Assange has refused to submit for questioning, and has evaded justice. Thus, being a flight risk, there's compelling reasons to arrest him.


Nope.


The police report is available online. It shows the testimony of the accuser.


Why not?


Why do you think he will be deported to the US?

The US has so far denied claims that they want a deportation, or have an indictment waiting for him. Right now, it seems Sweden's the only one that wants him, and that's for the rape allegations that he's run from. Manning is serving time for her part in releasing those documents meanwhile American authorities have yet to do anything over Assange. He should've gone to Sweden and done the interview, if he'd gone to trial, he could've argued the political impact that could affect his decision and might have either gotten off on something of a compassionate release (or it may be proven he didn't commit a crime). However, him fleeing and avoiding it hasn't helped him, so that if he did go to Sweden, that'd most likely affect the jury's response to him -- because he ran.

Isn't that an ongoing investigation in the US, and no charges have been levied against Assange?

[Lady Scylla]

The US has so far denied claims that they want a deportation, or have an indictment waiting for him. Right now, it seems Sweden's the only one that wants him, and that's for the rape allegations that he's run from. Manning is serving time for her part in releasing those documents meanwhile American authorities have yet to do anything over Assange. He should've gone to Sweden and done the interview, if he'd gone to trial, he could've argued the political impact that could affect his decision and might have either gotten off on something of a compassionate release (or it may be proven he didn't commit a crime). However, him fleeing and avoiding it hasn't helped him, so that if he did go to Sweden, that'd most likely affect the jury's response to him -- because he ran.

Isn't that an ongoing investigation in the US, and no charges have been levied against Assange?

It is.

After WikiLeaks released the Manning material, U.S. authorities began investigating WikiLeaks and Assange personally with a view to prosecuting them under the Espionage Act of 1917.[109] In November 2010 U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder said there was "an active, ongoing criminal investigation" into WikiLeaks.[110] It emerged from legal documents leaked over the ensuing months that Assange and others were being investigated by a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia.[111][112][113] An email from an employee of intelligence consultancy Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (Stratfor) leaked in 2012 said, "We have a sealed indictment on Assange."[114] The U.S. government denies the existence of such an indictment.[115][116]

In December 2011 prosecutors in the Chelsea Manning case revealed the existence of chat logs between Manning and an alleged WikiLeaks interlocutor they claimed to be Assange;[117][118] he denies this,[119][120] dismissing the alleged connection as "absolute nonsense."[121] The logs were presented as evidence during Manning's court-martial in June–July 2013. The prosecution argued that they show WikiLeaks helping Manning reverse-engineer a password.[122][123] The evidence that the interlocutor was Assange is circumstantial, however, and Manning insists she acted alone.[113][123]

Assange was being examined separately by "several government agencies" in addition to the grand jury, most notably the FBI.[124] Court documents published in May 2014 suggest that Assange was still under "active and ongoing" investigation at that time.[125]

Moreover, some Snowden documents published in 2014 show that the United States government put Assange on the "2010 Manhunting Timeline",[126] and in the same period they urged their allies to open criminal investigations into the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.[127] In the same documents there was a proposal by the NSA to designate WikiLeaks as a "malicious foreign actor", thus increasing the surveillance against it.

On 26 January 2015, WikiLeaks revealed that three members of the organisation received notice that "Google had handed over all their emails and metadata to the United States government".[128] In the notifications, there was the list of possible charges that originated the warrant to Google and that the secret grand jury intends to use against WikiLeaks and likely Assange too. They were espionage, conspiracy to commit espionage, theft or conversion of property belonging to the United States government, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and general conspiracy. They carry up to a minimum of 45 years in prison, if they amount to one charge per these five types; otherwise, even more years could be added.

The US investigation confirmed its ongoing case against WikiLeaks in a 15 December 2015 court submission.[129]

Citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_As ... estigation

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19426382

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html